FEBA,
Sorry about the ‘vitriol’. But in view of your record of ignoring the facts and engaging in personal abuse, I thought I’d try and include some abuse and invective in my post, while still doing you the courtesy of treating you like a rational and intelligent person.
I had a lot to match up to, however.
“My two questions were carefully posed, since I knew you would be able to answer neither...”
“Your eagerness to launch into rebuke reveals your true grasp of the subject matter”
“I cannot share your parochial vision of this country..... Neither can I share your misguided opinions”
“You may wish to reflect as to why you are in a minority (you and Geoff Hoon)”
“Your defence policy has more to do with the hippy movement than with reality. "lets all get round the table and have a nice cup of tea and a chat" cuts no ice with errant countries.”
“You're a gift, you really are.”
You have made a lot of emotive points, many of which have been unsupported and unsupportable by evidence and you have shown a complete understanding of the realities of the budgetary pressures facing the services, and of the way in which they respond to those pressures.
I suspect that your lack of any sensible answer to the points I raise explains your failure to respond to them. Or perhaps it’s that I’ve hurt your feelings by being nearly as rude as you, you delicate little flower.
Navaleye,
I have life assurance. I have insurance. I probably don't have enough of either. At times I have had to make do with Third Party Fire and Theft, when Fully Comp has been unaffordable. I don't have earthquake insurance. In an ideal world, with less limited defence spending, I wouldn't bin the SHar. But in the real circumstances, it's a tough but justifiable cut.